The judge had asked Twitter to show why it wasn’t in contempt of court after refusing to produce information about Twitter posts by protester Malcolm Harris in response to a subpoena from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.

“I can’t put Twitter or the little blue bird in jail, so the only way to punish is monetarily,” Sciarrino said.

Twitter and Harris's lawyers point out that this seems to completely ignore Twitter's right to appeal the ruling. Sciarrino again doesn't seem to think this is an issue, insisting that his original ruling was "fair" and Twitter has had more than enough time to comply with the order. Harris' lawyer notes that this appears to be an attempt at railroading, preventing due process from happening:

“It’s pretty outrageous that the D.A.’s office wants to prohibit Twitter from exercising its right to appeal,” said Martin Stolar, a lawyer with the National Lawyers Guild who represents Harris, after the hearing.

from the your-friends-in-the-government dept

With the US government looking for software that will let them manage fake profiles on social networks, in order to "infiltrate" groups, you might have forgotten that they can also take the easy way out and issue a subpoena. While Julian Assange is certainly being hyperbolic with his claims that "Facebook... is the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented," it is worth remembering that the US government can access all sorts of info from Facebook. The Next Web has a the details of what kind of info Facebook provides law enforcement on the receipt of a valid subpoena. Of course, this certainly doesn't mean Facebook is handing over this kind of info willy-nilly (this isn't AT&T we're talking about here...). Also, none of this is a huge surprise, but just a reminder that Facebook likely has a lot of info about you, and when put together, could allow the government to collect a pretty detailed dossier on certain aspects of your life:

Once Facebook has the form submitted, they will then prepare an archive for the police to review. That archive will include the following.

User ID number

Email address

Date and Time of your accountís creation

The most recent logins, usually the last 2-3 days

Your phone number, if you registered it

Profile contact info

Mini-feed

Status update history

Shares

Notes

Wall posts

Friends list

Groups list

Future and past events

Videos

Photos

Private messages

IP logs (computers and locations you logged in from)

Youíll notice that this list includes just about everything that youíve posted to Facebook. In addition, it also includes a list of your Friends, which you didnít technically add to Facebook yourself.

Again, there's nothing surprising here, but when laid out directly, it may make some people realize that relying so much on a third party like Facebook to manage such a large part of your life also opens yourself up to certain risks.

from the fed-trolling dept

At the beginning of January, thanks to Twitter pushing back against a gag order and request from the feds to hand over info of people connected to Wikileaks, it came out publicly that the government was seeking such info. Of course, the government almost certainly sent similar requests to a bunch of other companies that simply rolled over. However, thanks to Twitter's willingness to stand up to the government, it's allowed the folks whose info was sought to fight back, though the initial steps in that fighting back were apparently gagged as well.

Thankfully, part of the gag has been lifted, and we now know that the EFF and the ACLU are challenging the info requestand are seeking to have more documents in the case unsealed as well, including the Justice Department's original application for the order -- which should explain the reason for requesting the info. Who knows if the court will grant this, but once again, none of this would even be open for discussion if Twitter had just rolled over and handed the feds the info they demanded.

from the people-respect-that dept

Chris Soghoian recently gave a talk where he reminded companies that it actually can be good for business to say "no" when the government comes asking for info. He ran through a variety of scenarios (many covered here on Techdirt) when certain companies stood up to government requests and said no. When the news was later revealed, companies that have stood up to government requests often get very good press, while those who gave in, get really bad press. Of course, I think Chris may be overselling the case here, as it's not clear that the short burst of good PR from these situations really had a lasting impact. But, it is certainly one reason (among many) that companies shouldn't just roll over every time the government comes calling.